Dismissed

Smt Ragni Kumari v. Canara Bank

DRT18 Sept 2023MA/167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed by the applicant to set aside an order dismissing their suit due to a settlement. The court rejected the application as devoid of merits due to lack of affidavit support and absence of the counsel who purportedly settled the matter. However, the applicant was allowed to file a fresh SARFAESI application for uncovered assets.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was allowed to file a fresh SARFAESI application against measures not covered under the earlier suit.

Smt Ragni Kumari versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATNA

¶2

Date of order or proceeding

¶3

18.09.2023

¶4

Order with the Signature of the Court	Office action taken with date
MA 167 of 2022 (Arising out of SA No.17 of 2022) Smt. Ragni Kumari Vs. Canara Bank Dr. B.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant is present Shri S.S. Thakur, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank is present.
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the present Misc. Application
has been filed to set aside the order dated 19.05.2022 passed in SA 17 of 2022, whereby it was observed that SA 17 of 2022 has become infructuous in view of the report submitted by the Registrar. Registrar in his report had specifically mentioned that ld. Counsel for the SARF AESI Applicant Shri Sanjeet Kumar has stated that the matter had been settled between the parties. On that ground he
sought permission to withdraw the said SA. Accordingly the said SA had become infructuous and was dismissed.

¶5

Now the Misc. Applicant submits that no settlement took place between the parties. That statement was given without any authority. It is strange that Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Ld. Counsel who made the statement of settlement and also filed the present Misc. Application is not arguing the case today. The present case is being argued by ld. Counsel Dr. B.K. Singh and he has referred paras 10, 11, 12, 13 ~ 14 of the application denying the fact of settlement and seeking apology for giving such statement on behalf of the Applicant.

¶6

Again it is to be pointed out that there is no affidavit on behalf of the ld. Counsel Shri Sanjeet Kumar. There is neither an affidavit of Ms. Ragni Kumari nor Ms. Ragni Kumari has signed the application. She has filed an affidavit in support of application, which has not been signed by her and no fact has been mentioned the in the affidavit, as such the facts mentioned in the application do not stand supported by any affidavit by ld. Counselor the Applicant.

¶7

In such circumstances Misc. Application has no merits and is dismissed. Interim order, if any stands vacated. File be consigned to record room.

¶8

However, at the request of the ld. Counsel for the Applicant, it is made open to the Applicant to file SARFAESI Application, if any maintainable afresh under the law against the measurers not covered under the aforesaid SA. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website Patna

Smt Ragni Kumari v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ragni Kumari v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjaykumar Dayaram Gayakvad versus Bank of Baroda

Atulkumar Gondaliya Others versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shri Nath Marbles

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Krishan Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Chanan Singh

Canara Bank versus Sri Lakshmi Foils